5 ms·

They claim the story is factually incorrect, but provide no corrections. There were two claims in the NY Times story: 1) FedEx paid $0 in tax 2) FedEx "has

by 300bps 7y ago

They claim the story is factually incorrect, but provide no corrections. There were two claims in the NY Times story: 1) FedEx paid $0 in tax 2) FedEx "has not made good on its promised investment surge" In response, FedEx wrote in their statement: 1) our billions of dollars of tax payments whereby they dispute paying $0 in taxes 2) $6 billion of capital that FedEx invested in the U.S. economy This directly contradicts what the NY Times wrote. And then they further point that the NY Times is actually guilty of what the NY Times is accusing FedEx of. How is their statement a farce? Further, the problem is that the tax code, especially for corporations, is so complex that anyone's tax payments can be spun any way you want them. For example, I contributed the maximum allowed to my employer's 401k this year. Someone could spin a news story saying, "300bps is avoiding taxes!" because I legally did not pay tax on $19,000 of income I otherwise would've had to. I don't know the particulars of FedEx's tax situation and honestly it would probably take me days of studying it before I could scratch the surface of understanding it. If FedEx did something illegal, there is a nice tax bounty the NY Times could get for reporting them - https://www.irs.gov/compliance/whistleblower-informant-award https://www.irs.gov/compliance/whistleblower-informant-award The NY Times is obviously not aware of anything FedEx did that is illegal so instead they put out a piece accusing them of paying $0 tax and not investing enough.

whakim 7y ago
1) They aren't disputing the "$0 paid in taxes in 2018," which is the main point of the NYTimes article (an article about how companies were responding to the Tax Cuts/Jobs Act). "Billions of dollars in tax payments" is factually correct, but doesn't address the core allegation. 2) $6 billion compared to what (prior to previous years)? No point of reference here. The response is great theater, but it is carefully worded to not refute the allegations.
- larnmar 7y ago
  On the other hand the allegations themselves are carefully selected in order to create a false narrative.
  - whakim 7y ago
    I'm not sure I believe that either. The reason that the article focused on 2018 numbers is that they provide a direct comparison pre- and post- Tax Cuts/Jobs Act. In 2018, Fedex paid less tax and invested less compared to 2017 - despite saving $1.6bn. On the other hand, investment in stock buybacks and dividends more than doubled. Not sure how those allegations are "carefully selected"?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - moneywoes 7y ago
    Is paying $0 in tax a false narrative?
  - munk-a 7y ago
    I think it's unproductive to try and read all news in bad faith, there are very few things that anyone can truly 100% comprehend and in a democracy we need everyone to be at least somewhat aware of things happening in society.
    - larnmar 7y ago
      It’s not necessarily assuming bad faith to realise the existence of the context which leads to the selection and writing of the articles at the New York Times, or Fox News, or Buzzfeed, or Xinhua, or any other outlet.
      - scott_s 7y ago
        I agree that all news outlets represent the world view of their reporting and editorial staff. I disagree that it is always accurate to call this a "false narrative."
awinder 7y ago
It doesn't directly contradict what the NYTimes wrote, at all: 1. Fedex is bundling total tax expenditures (state taxes, employment taxes, who knows what, probably the whole kit) versus their federal income tax liability which is what NYTimes is discussing 2. Fedex has been in the 5-6B annual Capex range since FY 2015. Further, someone could "spin" that 401k treatment, but this is an article about how Fedex rallied hard for specific tax treatments that had a specific effect. So if you wanna go out there and get some carve-out, expect to catch crap for it. If you're a normal person you'll go laughing to the bank with it, but if you're an especially hostile individual I guess you could, like, challenge people to a debate or whatever
- sujNansnam 7y ago
  It’s interesting that when Mitt Romney said 47% of Americans don’t pay income taxes, the Times pointed out this was misleading because many of those people do pay payroll and other taxes. It seems they are guilty of the same sort of deceptive rhetoric here.
rndmize 7y ago
> This directly contradicts what the NY Times wrote. It does not. FTA: > But the company ended its 2018 fiscal year having spent $240 million less on capital investments than it predicted it would in December 2017, shortly before the tax cuts passed. The company’s capital spending declined by nearly $175 million in fiscal 2019. --- > And then they further point that the NY Times is actually guilty of what the NY Times is accusing FedEx of. The NYT didn't lobby in favor of the tax cuts and argue it would increase business investment, then fail to actually follow through - not to mention that regardless of the NYT's corporate actions, this has nothing to do with their reporting - and on top of that, the article is about the expected effects of the tax cuts vs. the actual effects on a national level with FedEx as a salient example. Countering with "but they did too" is irrelevant to the point at hand. > The NY Times is obviously not aware of anything FedEx did that is illegal so instead they put out a piece accusing them of paying $0 tax and not investing enough. You are ascribing motive to the authors that has no basis in fact. The NYT is making the argument the tax cuts didn't do what they were advertised to do. It's the literal subhead on the article: > How FedEx Cut Its Tax Bill to $0: The company, like much of corporate America, has not made good on its promised investment surge from President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.
dominotw 7y ago
> has not made good on its promised investment surge I am trying to find where they promised this but can't find anything on google. anyone have something on this?
- awinder 7y ago
  It was in this radio show, but I'm not gonna hunt for the time code: https://about.van.fedex.com/point-of-view/policy-perspectives/frederick-w-smith-larry-kudlow-show/ https://about.van.fedex.com/point-of-view/policy-perspective...

by 300bps 7y ago

whakim 7y ago

1) They aren't disputing the "$0 paid in taxes in 2018," which is the main point of the NYTimes article (an article about how companies were responding to the Tax Cuts/Jobs Act). "Billions of dollars in tax payments" is factually correct, but doesn't address the core allegation. 2) $6 billion compared to what (prior to previous years)? No point of reference here. The response is great theater, but it is carefully worded to not refute the allegations.

larnmar 7y ago
On the other hand the allegations themselves are carefully selected in order to create a false narrative.
- whakim 7y ago
  I'm not sure I believe that either. The reason that the article focused on 2018 numbers is that they provide a direct comparison pre- and post- Tax Cuts/Jobs Act. In 2018, Fedex paid less tax and invested less compared to 2017 - despite saving $1.6bn. On the other hand, investment in stock buybacks and dividends more than doubled. Not sure how those allegations are "carefully selected"?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- moneywoes 7y ago
  Is paying $0 in tax a false narrative?
- munk-a 7y ago
  I think it's unproductive to try and read all news in bad faith, there are very few things that anyone can truly 100% comprehend and in a democracy we need everyone to be at least somewhat aware of things happening in society.
  - larnmar 7y ago
    It’s not necessarily assuming bad faith to realise the existence of the context which leads to the selection and writing of the articles at the New York Times, or Fox News, or Buzzfeed, or Xinhua, or any other outlet.
    - scott_s 7y ago
      I agree that all news outlets represent the world view of their reporting and editorial staff. I disagree that it is always accurate to call this a "false narrative."

awinder 7y ago

It doesn't directly contradict what the NYTimes wrote, at all: 1. Fedex is bundling total tax expenditures (state taxes, employment taxes, who knows what, probably the whole kit) versus their federal income tax liability which is what NYTimes is discussing 2. Fedex has been in the 5-6B annual Capex range since FY 2015. Further, someone could "spin" that 401k treatment, but this is an article about how Fedex rallied hard for specific tax treatments that had a specific effect. So if you wanna go out there and get some carve-out, expect to catch crap for it. If you're a normal person you'll go laughing to the bank with it, but if you're an especially hostile individual I guess you could, like, challenge people to a debate or whatever

sujNansnam 7y ago
It’s interesting that when Mitt Romney said 47% of Americans don’t pay income taxes, the Times pointed out this was misleading because many of those people do pay payroll and other taxes. It seems they are guilty of the same sort of deceptive rhetoric here.

rndmize 7y ago

> This directly contradicts what the NY Times wrote. It does not. FTA: > But the company ended its 2018 fiscal year having spent $240 million less on capital investments than it predicted it would in December 2017, shortly before the tax cuts passed. The company’s capital spending declined by nearly $175 million in fiscal 2019. --- > And then they further point that the NY Times is actually guilty of what the NY Times is accusing FedEx of. The NYT didn't lobby in favor of the tax cuts and argue it would increase business investment, then fail to actually follow through - not to mention that regardless of the NYT's corporate actions, this has nothing to do with their reporting - and on top of that, the article is about the expected effects of the tax cuts vs. the actual effects on a national level with FedEx as a salient example. Countering with "but they did too" is irrelevant to the point at hand. > The NY Times is obviously not aware of anything FedEx did that is illegal so instead they put out a piece accusing them of paying $0 tax and not investing enough. You are ascribing motive to the authors that has no basis in fact. The NYT is making the argument the tax cuts didn't do what they were advertised to do. It's the literal subhead on the article: > How FedEx Cut Its Tax Bill to $0: The company, like much of corporate America, has not made good on its promised investment surge from President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.

dominotw 7y ago

> has not made good on its promised investment surge I am trying to find where they promised this but can't find anything on google. anyone have something on this?

awinder 7y ago
It was in this radio show, but I'm not gonna hunt for the time code: https://about.van.fedex.com/point-of-view/policy-perspectives/frederick-w-smith-larry-kudlow-show/ https://about.van.fedex.com/point-of-view/policy-perspective...